5 ms·

Agree, FAA & Pharma are good examples. That said, keyword everyone seems to be missing is “personal” — specifically from: >> By context, I mean professional,

Agree, FAA & Pharma are good examples. That said, keyword everyone seems to be missing is “personal” — specifically from: >> By context, I mean professional, personal, etc. Lots of professional examples exist; consumer reports would likely be a personal example, even throughly researched medical decisions, but not aware of any culture, even small group of people of significant size, that try to base choices on science; or at the very least identify which choices are not being made using science. Basically, I mean a culture most likely that lives and works together, though at the very least all practice science based choices all the time.

gus_massa 4y ago
Lojban language? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban But I suspect if it get even moderately popular, people will start to add shorcuts and idioms and it will mutate in the usual mess that are normal languages.
- O__________O 4y ago
  Thanks, appreciate the effort, and yes, run across logical languages before, which theorize that people’s perceptions are relative to their spoken language, which I understand, but don’t really agree with and given how long it takes to run language experiments from scratch, feels like a long, longer term goal to evaluate impact of linguistics of reasoning, logical thinking, scientific leans, etc. Understand idea of “living” science-based decisions is a little odd, likely pipe dream, but not aware of any fundamental reasoning of why it’s flawed, impossible, etc. PS - One of the limits of Lojban in logic there is no notation for probability, there is only truth and falsity. There have been efforts to address this, obviously addressable, but my main point is the original form of Lojban had a significant flaw. Here’s example of one attempt to address this one gap: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BS8dYNN5D6kLhvdXR/thinking-bayesianically-with-lojban https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BS8dYNN5D6kLhvdXR/thinking-b...
  - gus_massa 4y ago
    > Understand idea of “living” science-based decisions is a little odd, likely pipe dream, but not aware of any fundamental reasoning of why it’s flawed, impossible, etc. Life is full of tradeoff, and the function to optimize is not clear. An interesting example are lockdowns against covid-19. Science can give a rough estimation of how many lives it would save now, but there are so many unknown parameters that is more a wild guess with huge error bars than a precise number. Economy can give a rough estimation of how much poverty will increase and how many additional death will be in the future, but there are so many unknown parameters that is more a wild guess with HUGE error bars than a precise number. I expect even huger variation form expert to expert in both the estimation of the poverty level at short term and the death number in the future. I remember an old post about a "covid game" https://koronahra.cz/intro https://koronahra.cz/intro https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27763873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27763873 (238 points | July 7, 2021 | 237 comments) . I appreciate they call it "game" instead of "simulator" because the numbers are pulled out of the air, so it's somewhat realistic but take any result with a grain of salt. So it's death now vs death in the future. Anyway, there a few strategies. You can make a huge lockdown and save a lot of lives at a huge cost, or keep everything open and have a low cost and huge death number. And there is some sweet spot in the middle. There is a tradeoff. Who knows where is the optimal spot? And there are the unknown unknowns, like what would happened if there were no vaccine after 1 year. I was not optimistic about a vaccine too soon, like with SARS1.

gus_massa 4y ago

Lojban language? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban But I suspect if it get even moderately popular, people will start to add shorcuts and idioms and it will mutate in the usual mess that are normal languages.

O__________O 4y ago
Thanks, appreciate the effort, and yes, run across logical languages before, which theorize that people’s perceptions are relative to their spoken language, which I understand, but don’t really agree with and given how long it takes to run language experiments from scratch, feels like a long, longer term goal to evaluate impact of linguistics of reasoning, logical thinking, scientific leans, etc. Understand idea of “living” science-based decisions is a little odd, likely pipe dream, but not aware of any fundamental reasoning of why it’s flawed, impossible, etc. PS - One of the limits of Lojban in logic there is no notation for probability, there is only truth and falsity. There have been efforts to address this, obviously addressable, but my main point is the original form of Lojban had a significant flaw. Here’s example of one attempt to address this one gap: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BS8dYNN5D6kLhvdXR/thinking-bayesianically-with-lojban https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BS8dYNN5D6kLhvdXR/thinking-b...
- gus_massa 4y ago
  > Understand idea of “living” science-based decisions is a little odd, likely pipe dream, but not aware of any fundamental reasoning of why it’s flawed, impossible, etc. Life is full of tradeoff, and the function to optimize is not clear. An interesting example are lockdowns against covid-19. Science can give a rough estimation of how many lives it would save now, but there are so many unknown parameters that is more a wild guess with huge error bars than a precise number. Economy can give a rough estimation of how much poverty will increase and how many additional death will be in the future, but there are so many unknown parameters that is more a wild guess with HUGE error bars than a precise number. I expect even huger variation form expert to expert in both the estimation of the poverty level at short term and the death number in the future. I remember an old post about a "covid game" https://koronahra.cz/intro https://koronahra.cz/intro https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27763873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27763873 (238 points | July 7, 2021 | 237 comments) . I appreciate they call it "game" instead of "simulator" because the numbers are pulled out of the air, so it's somewhat realistic but take any result with a grain of salt. So it's death now vs death in the future. Anyway, there a few strategies. You can make a huge lockdown and save a lot of lives at a huge cost, or keep everything open and have a low cost and huge death number. And there is some sweet spot in the middle. There is a tradeoff. Who knows where is the optimal spot? And there are the unknown unknowns, like what would happened if there were no vaccine after 1 year. I was not optimistic about a vaccine too soon, like with SARS1.